In Post-Mortem of Election, Clinton Learns Literally Nothing

M. Jaggers

Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes.
Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign.
New York: Crown, 2017.

The left, Clinton, and the media are defiant, and refuse to learn anything from the 2016 presidential election — root causes, messaging, or anything else which would hint at self-awareness.  They still want us to believe that the Russkies did it. Or they point towards breaches against PC doctrine about race and gender they think somehow proves their case.  How can we get through to people who are at once so sensitive about words and speech, and yet so dull in perceiving cause and effect?

Some documentation has emerged recently which gives us a more intimate look into the Clinton campaign’s strategy and the thought process of Clinton herself, both post-election and during the campaign.  Some of this we already know: that she is arrogant, entitled, and so forth; but what is in particular amusing is that she still seems to think that the “argument” of referring to Trump and his supporters as “racist” is an a priori proposition — no evidence needed, rather than a contentious characterization of which people have grown weary.

For example, it may be underestimated how devastating Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” speech was to her campaign.  This is described in Shattered, a book which gives an inside look at the Clinton campaign (though through an annoyingly partisan Democrat perspective).  The authors, Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes, compare “basket of deplorables” to Romney’s “47 percent” remark, which may well have cost him the election: “Hillary had become the 2016 cycle’s Mitt Romney […] For all the messaging she’d done on inclusiveness, she now sounded like not only an elite but an elitist” (316).  While it was hard to gauge the political effects at the time due to the constant spin from the MSM, that may well have been the moment that she lost the election.  Shattered shows that the Clinton campaign was more cognizant of her mistake than they let on.  At any rate, the remark certainly demonstrated Clinton’s cavalier attitude towards non-ethnomasochistic Whites (for those who weren’t already aware).  

Perhaps it all started with Clinton’s strategy to appeal almost exclusively to minorities and other assorted misfits in the Democrat party:

She’d become the candidate of minority voters on social justice issues while Bernie hit her as a corrupt Wall Street-loving champion of the “rigged” financial system that took advantage of working-class voters.  Whether she was perceived as hostile to working and middle-class whites or just indifferent, it wasn’t a big leap from “she doesn’t care about my job” to “she’d rather give my job to a minority or a foreigner than fight for me to keep it.”  She and her aides were focused on the wrong issue set for working-class white Michigan voters, and […] it wasn’t at all clear to them that she was on their side. (178)

This is the fundamental problem of the left in the multicultural West. On one hand, they champion immigration and all things multicultural with nothing but slogans like “diversity is our greatest strength” to try to appeal to White voters. The result has been that politics has become increasingly racialized throughout the West, with White voters voting for parties seen as less positive about immigration- and diversity-related issues. In the US, that means Whites vote Republican.

While Hillary failed to attract Whites, she swept the minority vote.  It was always my impression that these groups could not grasp the subtlety of Bernie Sanders’ message vis-à-vis the “rigged financial system.”  And as thoroughly documented, Clinton continued to have anemic support from the White working class throughout the primaries right through to the election.  Shattered recounts how she quite deliberately shunned White suburbs in order to focus on heavily populated cities to run up the tally of the minority vote against Sanders during the primary.  Yeah, White people noticed that.

As Rebecca Traister writes in a puff piece for New York Magazine about Clinton’s post-election ruminations, the Democratic primaries consisted of “badly framed conflicts between identity politics and economic issues,” with Clinton obviously capitalizing on identity politics and Sanders focusing on economic issues.  Sanders naively thought that his economic pitch would also appeal to minorities, who are after all largely low-income.  But again, his pitch was too abstract, and perhaps he failed to placate their wounded sense of victimhood to the degree that Clinton did so flagrantly.  Incidentally, Republicans make the same naïve mistake as Sanders in assuming that a universal good will also appeal to minorities, such as charter schools, or even a border wall.  Instead, Blacks, perhaps accurately, perceive politics as a zero-sum game, wherein only gestures made exclusively to their racial group are appreciated.

Shattered posits that Trump thrived because of the simplicity of his message; whereas Clinton, who is such a prodigious retainer of information, had trouble sometimes communicating the nuance and complexity of her understanding of the issues.  This is of course a humble-brag: “I’m so smart that I come off as wonkish,” and we’ve heard it from many Clinton surrogates.  A more simple explanation is that people did not agree with her arguments on a variety of fronts, most notably trade, immigration, and foreign policy.  And again, her win of the popular vote was a matter of raw identity politics, not actually persuading thoughtful voters.

Parallel to the complaints of “racism” are the complaints of “sexism” in her defeat.  This topic merits perhaps its own treatment, but suffice it to say that Clinton and the left show a cluelessness in this area which is perfectly analogous to their cluelessness on race.  Quoted in the New York Magazine article mentioned above, Clinton expounds upon the alleged sexism to which she attributes her defeat, and places it more broadly into the context of an ignorant and biased electorate:

 “There’s always been this rearguard movement against expanding the circle of opportunity,” she says. “And I believe that a lot of what’s happening now is a resurgence of the anxiety, the fear, the bias that still affects people who are worried that change is coming even faster, that it will have even more consequences.” The unwillingness to acknowledge this backlash, says Clinton, is “part of the reason we are, if not going backward, certainly stalled.”

So in effect, our rejection of her is a rejection of “progress” itself — the arrogant self-image of the left as moral beacon to humanity which all right thinking people must accept.  She talks about the “fear,” “anxiety,” and “bias” of Trump voters, but never comes to grips with the self-interest of these voters — self-interest that our hostile elites have equated with the above pejoratives.  Her lack of awareness is nicely reflected in New York Magazine with a picture of her in her Midtown office, standing in a garish yellow pantsuit watching a monitor of CNN rant about “Russian collusion.”  What we have here is a veritable hall of mirrors, where even the erstwhile leader of the movement has begun believing her own lies — both on Russia and on her self-exonerating, self-serving version of the 2016 election.

Shattered’s basic thesis is that the blame lies squarely on Clinton’s shoulders; or more specifically, the flawed strategy of the Clinton campaign.  Clinton’s campaign, run by Robert Mook, sought to use computer models to determine strategy almost to the exclusion of all other methods of voter persuasion; and that model apparently projected that Obama’s “coalition of the ascendant” (to use a vile phrase) would get her past the finish line.  Not everyone was on board with that approach:

They understood the value of slicing and dicing voters to make efficient decisions, but they also felt that Hillary should be doing more to show that she wanted every vote.  Some of them believed that instead of basing her campaign on Obama’s core coalition, she should have begun with the working-class whites and Latinos who fueled her 2008 run and built out. (398)

This is the critical view of Mook’s strategy from inside Clinton’s campaign, a view shared by many of the old-school politicos and Bill Clinton himself. Mook ultimately felt that it would be a waste of time and expenditure to persuade what I refer to as “thoughtful voters” —those who actually consider issues and policy rather than base self-interest or racial identification.  Instead they just focused on getting out the base, which encompasses fewer and fewer White people who vote Democrat.  That entailed a form of (reverse?) race-baiting which was by definition alienating to White voters.

Shattered explains that Bill Clinton had an empathy with White voters that Hillary lacked:

Hillary couldn’t grasp the sentiment of the electorate, the resentfulness white working-and middle-class Americans felt watching the wealthy rebound quickly from the 2008 economic crisis while their families struggled through a slow recovery.  Her team didn’t really get it, either. (129)

However, these social class resentments seem more to match the concerns of the White Bernie Sanders voter. Other Whites may have been equally turned off by Clinton’s rhetoric on hot-button issues, such as immigration, or her insinuation during the first debate with Trump that literally every White person—not just the police—has an “implicit bias” that they need to address.  Blacks presumably have no such pressing need towards self-improvement.

Bill Clinton yearned to be deployed to persuade voters in “small towns in northern New Hampshire, Appalachia, and rural Florida” (131) where he could show his trademark empathy and put some points on the board with White voters.  Yet Mook did not feel that would be a good investment, and instead wanted him deployed to speak to “white liberals and minorities in cities and their close-in suburbs.”

I’m not saying that White voters would have been, or should have been appeased or persuaded by Bill Clinton’s words—because after all, that was all he was offering.  Instead, the point is to demonstrate the brazen and wholesale abandonment of the White working-class and rural vote by the Clinton campaign as a matter of campaign strategy.

Even the internal debate about strategy within the Clinton campaign missed the point.  It is not a matter of using certain talking points to assuage White working-class voters, or showing up at the local diner with the same spiel offered elsewhere.  The point is that the particular policies, not to mention the rhetoric, of Clinton was tailored for the benefit of minorities and urban guilt-ridden White liberals who relish statements targeting the supposed deficiencies of Whites. It is indeed a zero-sum game; and at this point, there is no political spin that will make any but the most liberal Whites fail to recognize what is in their own interests.


Clinton now refuses to take any responsibility for losing because she “will not point fingers at her own team in assessing her loss,” as if her posturing is out of loyalty to her staff.  This is an oblique rebuttal to the criticisms in Shattered.  Indeed, Clinton and the media refuse to assess the results of the election with any candor, and instead have heaped scorn on Trump and his voters.  They have subjected us to a hostility which is even more alienating than before, a sentiment I imagine most White Trump voters share.  Clinton has even added “voter suppression,” presumably of minorities, to her list of alibis.  Meanwhile Judicial Watch is meeting much resistance in its effort to uncover not voter suppression, but rather illegal voting by non-citizens and other criminals.  What is truly exasperating is that Clinton continues to blame the media as somehow conspiring against her, despite the recent Harvard study which demonstrated the press has had negative coverage Trump by a measure upwards of 90 percent!

As to the issues Trump won on, namely trade and immigration, we can argue about whether he is effectively implementing policies to fulfill his campaign promises.  He has certainly tried, and the extent to which he has failed can be attributed in large part to liberal activists in the judiciary and congressional intransigence.  Prominent voices in the alt-right now voice real skepticism towards Trump; but they doth protest too much, with apparently too little attention and knowledge as to the nuts and bolts of how our government works, with its enumerated powers.

Regardless, at least we know why Trump won, which as we see above, Clinton does not.  Meanwhile, the left, the judiciary, and Congress are brazenly defying the will of the voters.  This is particularly the case with the court’s blocking of Trump’s travel ban, and Senate Democrats promising to shut down the government before allowing funds to be allocated for the Wall.  In doing so, they further alienate an already alienated group of people—the forgotten man, if you will.  And so now we are on the brink of a “dream deferred,” and all the explosion which that foreshadows.

Follow Malcolm Jaggers @malcolmjaggers; contact him via email

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks

22 Comments to "In Post-Mortem of Election, Clinton Learns Literally Nothing"

  1. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    June 14, 2017 - 9:40 am | Permalink

    M. Jaggers has earned the right to say, “Reading Shattered was a dirty job, but somebody had to do it.” I’d certainly buy him a drink for doing so.

    Perhaps he would explain, however, why he fails to mention the book’s in-depth coverage of Hillary’s criminality, treason, and pursuit of pelf as factors in the loss of white voters. Might Mr. Jaggers have failed us in this regard? [FACETIOUSNESS ALERT!]

    An old friend of mine remarked last November that Hillary would have won an additional 100,000 white votes had she simply demurred publicly from the Sacred Jigaboo’s pardoning of Jonathan Pollard and then referred frequently to her demurral during the campaign. It’s a reasonable surmise.

    • Federal Reserve's Gravatar Federal Reserve
      June 15, 2017 - 5:26 pm | Permalink

      This tells you how gullible white voters are. Easily swayed by a politician’s comments.

      • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
        June 16, 2017 - 11:16 am | Permalink

        Correct, of course. But after a century of indoctrination, gullibility and susceptibility to being swayed are, as the IQ votaries might say, better explainable by environment than heredity. Thus, while the outcome is still deplorable, white culpability is markedly reduced. I believe that this circumstance needs to be kept in mind before our brothers and sisters are in effect written off.

    • tadzio308's Gravatar tadzio308
      June 15, 2017 - 5:47 pm | Permalink

      Quibble. Pollard was not pardoned. He was paroled without opposition from the DOJ. President Obama declined to lift restrictions imposed by the Parole Board. He is still a convicted felon.

      • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
        June 16, 2017 - 11:10 am | Permalink

        An excellent quibble! Thank you, tadzio.

  2. Ger Tzedek's Gravatar Ger Tzedek
    June 14, 2017 - 10:38 am | Permalink

    I have a homework due, and sinking in research. I couldn’t read it, but the title says it all.

    Obviously Hillary didn’t learn a thing. It is typical of Borderline Personality Disorder to learn nothing. Same with Jews. Expelled 111 times. Even exodus from Egypt was actually a series of expulsions marred with blood and plunder of Egyptians. Learned nothing.

    • Sam J.'s Gravatar Sam J.
      June 14, 2017 - 10:40 pm | Permalink

      “…Even exodus from Egypt was actually a series of expulsions marred with blood and plunder of Egyptians. Learned nothing…”

      Don’t lose hope. The Jews have been kicked out of every single country they’ve gone to in any large numbers. The absence of information sharing between countries and regions in the past has greatly helped their pillage of our societies. This is ending but they seem stuck. They don’t seem to be able to act like normal people.

      My assumption is they’re a tribe of psychopaths. Even if they’re not their long term actions seem to be indistinguishable from psychopaths so we might as well assume they are.

    • pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
      June 24, 2017 - 4:09 am | Permalink

      Ger Tzedek The exodus is history as written by the Jews, and their version has never been challenged in Hollywood or in Church in the West as far as I know not once in my entire lifetime, and the reason is that in the Church they believe that Exodus is the word of God. A month or so ago there was a piece in Occidental Observer about this and for the first time in my life I heard the point being made that actually Exodus was the version of events written by one side in the conflict, a conflict that ended in the Jews either (a) fleeing with God’s help (including plagues on all Egyptians including children ie collateral damage) or (b) being expelled as has happened with them on other occasions. So far we only have version (a) as presented by the Jews. But this raises the question of whether the Egyptians recorded anywhere (in their tombs perhaps) another version?

  3. walter smith's Gravatar walter smith
    June 14, 2017 - 2:10 pm | Permalink

    Not a bad review but you completely left out the “women’s vote” angle which was her main thrust of the campaign. The other two major prongs were blacks and Hispanics. It seems that the coalition Obama put together and Clinton inherited was too volatile to not implode. I expect politics on the left to become even uglier as they up the demagoguery against whites, and white men in particular, to appease the mob they have assembled. Meanwhile, it would behoove the Republicans to find ways to pit the diverse among us against each other and pick them off one by one starting with Asians. They can keep the blacks.

    • Karen T's Gravatar Karen T
      June 14, 2017 - 4:05 pm | Permalink

      Clinton may have picked up 54 percent of women’s votes compared to Trumps’s 42 percent, but he won 53 percent of white women’s votes.

    • pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
      June 24, 2017 - 4:13 am | Permalink

      ” I expect politics on the left to become even uglier ” As well as uglier, there are other changes. There is more of a divide appearing now than in past decades between the patriots/globalists, and this has resulted in people who never usually think about politics to start to do so. Many older voters who voted for Trump had never voted for decades. 30 years ago no-one knew the politics of film stars, but now they are willing to take huge drops in box office takings as they mouth off their extreme political globalist views.

  4. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    June 14, 2017 - 5:25 pm | Permalink

    Does the book make mention of Wikileaks’ contribution to her loss?

    • Malcolm Jaggers's Gravatar Malcolm Jaggers
      June 15, 2017 - 5:43 am | Permalink

      It does cover Wikileaks as a kind of nuisance for the Clinton campaign, but it certainly doesn’t get into the more salacious details of what was actually in Wikileaks…

  5. June 14, 2017 - 7:52 pm | Permalink

    Hillary? Hillary who?

  6. June 15, 2017 - 9:10 am | Permalink

    At times the author seems to think that the label “Leftist” is divorced from what Leftism means. A Leftist cannot change from an American-hating immigration enthusiast to an immigration patriot any more than a leopard can change its spots. Hillary had to be an immigration enthusiast, it’s what Leftists do.

    • Curmudgeon's Gravatar Curmudgeon
      June 20, 2017 - 6:47 am | Permalink

      A real “Leftist” i.e. old school trade unionist, has always been opposed to immigration, because (s)he understands that immigration lowers wages. Similarly, a real “Leftist” is patriotic, because (s)he supports the local or national businesses that create local or national jobs.
      Hillary is a globalist, and no different than any Bush. They are owned and do what they are told to do, as is 90% of Congress irrespective of political affiliation.

  7. June 15, 2017 - 3:21 pm | Permalink

    Bernie Sanders is typically handled with kid gloves, as if he is just a sort of “naive liberal” or “idealist progressive.”

    The reality? Bernie Sanders has spent his his career as a Washington insider providing a reliable vote for the Israel lobby and protecting the Zionist entity’s left flank. Sanders has spent zero political capital pushing through any of the “populist progressive” or “democratic socialist” policies he is known for, but he has spent political capital transferring the wages of working class White Americans to the Zionist entity. Far from being a critic of the “military industrial complex,” Sanders has instead provided cover for Israel’s military welfare from the USA and ran interference for Israel’s campaign of genocide against the Palestinians.

    If the leftists are to be believed, “fascism” is the “merger of state and corporate power.” Yet when Sanders had a chance to confront the ultimate example of the “merger of state and corporate power” – the Federal Reserve – he instead stabbed Ron Paul in the back and sabotaged the Audit the Fed bill in the Senate.

    Instead of regurgitating the fairy story of Bernie Sanders as some sort of “pie in the sky idealist” he should instead be understood as a ruthless, behind the scenes political operator wholly dedicated to the foreign Zionist regime. That is, in reality, what he has spent his entire decades-long political career doing.

    • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
      June 16, 2017 - 11:26 am | Permalink

      Great comment, HR. I’d quite forgotten about his sabotage of RP and the audit cause.

      The media’s marketing of Bernie Sanders as a lovably avuncular figure devoted to the interests of the little guy—as if the invading and marauding Jews who occupy southern and central Vermont and who put him in office and have kept him there are little guys—is one of the great propaganda success stories of the past thirty years. It’s a story that has even sucked in a small but measurable minority of TOO frequenters and other white advocates, especially but not exclusively non- and anti-Christian ones.

  8. Sam J.'s Gravatar Sam J.
    June 15, 2017 - 4:21 pm | Permalink

    I think it very likely that Both Mr. and Mrs. Clinton are psychopaths. Hence their great affinity with the Jews, a tribe of psychopaths. What is going on right now in the news is a focused psychopathic attack but most don’t realize it. We are being gas-lighted by the news. Here’s a quote from someone describing their attack by a psychopath, his wife.

    “…The victim tries to make sense of what is going on around them. What they don’t realise is, nothing is supposed to make sense. The psychopath is in full attack mode on the victim’s sanity. The psychopath is basically talking nonsense, but the victim is not aware that it is nonsense, or that they are under premeditated attack. As the victim’s mind tries to make sense of the babble, not realising that its not supposed to make sense, because it almost does make sense, some part of the persons thinking processes shuts down. How this really works I am not sure, but I feel as if I am getting close to the realisation of it…”

    The whole post is great if you should want to read it. I think it’s important to realize what exactly we are up against. Maybe I’m wrong about the Jews being a tribe of psychopaths but their behavior over long periods of time can not be distinguished from that of psychopaths so we might as well assume they are.

    • Sam J.'s Gravatar Sam J.
      June 15, 2017 - 5:14 pm | Permalink

      I need to add this book, which one of the best I’ve ever seen on psychopaths, on how to deal with psychopaths. In here might be the beginnings of a strategy to deal with them. It’s my belief that once people are wakened to psychopaths and their various natures they begin to recognize them rather easily. Even if you don’t believe the Jews are a tribe of psychopaths the book is a great read by a computer programmer that has broken down psychopaths behavior into smaller steps in order to recognize them. You can buy a copy or download a free pdf copy at the link below of “The Psychopath Code” by Pieter Hintjens.

    • Curmudgeon's Gravatar Curmudgeon
      June 20, 2017 - 6:55 am | Permalink

      I have believed, for many many years, that anyone who seeks the highest political office of a country is, if not a psychopath, suffering from some form of personality disorder. These people all have inflated egos, are ruthless, and vengeful. The only question is to what extent will the owners of the deep state tolerate them.

  9. HK Wills's Gravatar HK Wills
    June 18, 2017 - 7:52 pm | Permalink

    No mention of the hoary “vast rightwing conspiracy” eh ? That remark was evidence early on of Clinton’s paranoiac, narcissistic, and self deluding nature. Why did she lose ? It may have been revelations of her lawlessness and a poorly run campaign. More likely it was because her policies were anti-white, anti-traditional American, and, in effect, anti-public safety, i.e. more Muslims knowing that Isis vowed to infiltrate the “refugee” flows. Also no restrictions on parasites from Mexico.

Comments are closed.